Today there was a Geek Summit of sorts with an Entertainment Weekly hosted panel with Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams at San Diego Comic Con. Unfortunately there was no discussion of the Star Trek sequel, but there was news from Whedon on The Avengers, and Abrams confirmed the start date for Super-8 and also said some interesting things about 3-D. More details below and a full report below.

JJ Abrams talks Super-8 & 3D – Josh hearts Star Trek

Highlights & Key quotes

Joss Whedon confirms he will direct The Avengers

Abrams says shooting begins on Super-8 in September

Super-8 WILL NOT be in 3-D

Abrams’ Bad Robot is working on developing an Internet series/movie (like Whedon did with Dr. Horrible)

JJ Abrams on 3-D movies:

When you put the glasses on, everything gets dimmer. It all gets a little gray and muted. You get into it, my brain adjusts to it after a while, but for the first few minutes, it seems less than the experience…I’m not totally on board

Joss Whedon on Abrams Star Trek movie:

I keep watching it! [Star Trek] I have had moments of sheer —– panic because I love it so much. It is a gold standard for a team movie, for a summer movie, for any movie that has come out in the last couple of years. And it makes me throw up with fear.

POLL: 3D Trek sequel? Could it be that the Star Trek sequel will buck the new trend for summer blockbusters, and not be in 3-D? What do you think?

The music of Dr. Horrible got everyone in the mood as we awaited the arrival of the "Visionaries" of the hour, Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams. There was high hope the two would hit on a number of talking points, Star Trek, LOST, Super 8, The Avengers and the biggest fanboy wet dream of all, a collaboration. No collaboration coming and aside from Joss’ confirmation that he is indeed, directing The Avengers, (while getting in a joke about Marvel’s inability to draft a proper press release out) we didn’t get too much intel on the immediate future for these two. But what we did get was some insight into the pairs take on the future of serialized television, 3-D filmmaking, the necessity of or lack thereof, of film school and plenty of jokes from Whedon.

What better way to start to begin this gathering of fans at the alter of Whedon and Abrams than with stories from their early days as mere fans, themselves. As a kid, J.J revealed that he was a bigger fan of the guys the who did the
make-up and effects on his favorite films rather than big name directors. Abrams explained that he would send fan letter to the make-up artist on The Exorcist, which yielded him a prop tongue, send to him with a letter from the artist suggesting he spread some peanut butter on the grotesque prop. Joss, sadly could not top the tongue story. However he did joke that he’s got an alien egg but he had to bury the franchise in order to get it. And thus an hour of classic Whedon wisecracks ensues.

Asked when they decided to become storytellers, Joss explained that it was something he always wanted to do because "making an honest living sounded really hard." It was those early days of writing TV specs in order to get by that make him realize writing was where he would find himself.

Abrams, it turns out "was the idiot who loved to do magic tricks for his relatives." It was "that feeling of creating an illusion and making people believe it" that appealed to him. With that, came mention of a debate between Brian K. Vaughn and Drew Goddard about who is more pathetic comic nerds or magic nerds. According to J.J. neither are pathetic. Well maybe magic nerds.

And then Jeff "Doc" Jensen asked the elephant sized-question that had been taking up space in the room thus far. Yes, Joss Whedon is officially directing The Avengers, something that’s clearly a personal dream a guy who claims the "seminal superhero stories of (his) youth were The Avengers and Thing one annuals."

On the comics end of the spectrum, J.J. sited his time spent working in a comic shop as influential but claims it was TV series like The Twilight Zone that provided that early inspiration and draw towards Hollywood.

Next, Jensen asked Joss about his "take" on The Avengers. "I have to have a take?" was Joss’ response. He’s still writing an outline and in the stage of reworking it, said Whedon. But as far as his "take" Whedon said the thing he loves about The Avengers is "just how completely counter-intuitive it is. It makes no sense these people should be in same the room or on same team – and that is the very definition of family." Funny guy, that Joss Whedon

Next up was talk of J.J. mysterious Super 8. Abrams explained that his inspiration came from working on the restoration of Spielberg’s early works, which ultimately led him to call Spielberg with a pitch. The film will start shooting in September. Said Abrams, "the movie is in the spirit of the films (Spielberg) made years ago. It’s personal and hyper-real." And no, it won’t be in 3-D.

Which of course, led to a discussion on that very trendy form of filmmaking these days. Joss joked that he likes the format but said that some movies should not be in 3-D like Cabin in the Woods. For Abrams, 3-D "feels a little grey and muted. You get into it but he always seems less than the experience…I’m not totally onboard (with 3-D).

So are the two specifically writing for 3-D at all? Not especially it seems. Joss, again cracking jokes left and write, told a story about watching a bizarre horror movie on TV only to realize it was the Friday the 13th flick but with no violence no sex and of course, no 3-D and it was better.

Jensen next asked Joss about Dr. Horrible and long-standing rumors of a sequel. Whedon said it’s something that he, brother Jed and Mo Tanchareon have talked about over the years but nothings come of it yet, although some songs have been written. All three really want to do it said Whedon, but it needs to be on their "terms which seem to be interminable."

Regarding creating content for the Internet, Whedon said he felt like he "missed the boat on that" perhaps but did reveal that he started to work on an Internet piece with Warren Ellis called Wastleanders that he was going to direct. But then The Avengers came along…

Elaborating on the accessibility of filmmaking for the Internet, Abrams said the means are certainly there, explaining how he shot a recent Star Trek DVD trailer on a camera he used for his kids soccer games.

Of course, the topic of Whedon’s equally shaky and successful relationship with television came up. The situation with FOX and Dollhouse? Whedon said he "didn’t think it through." The networks want "sexy" but then they don’t seemed to be the crux of Whedon’s dilemma with FOX. Abrams added that he doesn’t think the networks are as interested in serialized stories as we’d like them to be. Added Whedon, "the networks will never admit that people want serialized shows. They see an easy cash cow in something like The Mentalist. When LOST was huge the networks still spoke against serialized story telling. They are thinking about their bottom line….With TV it’s about appealing to the audience and the first audience is the networks."

Whedon suspects he may be a better fit for cable. I like the sound of that. But Whedon’s happy to be working with Marvel, where he can do what he wants. Asked how he’ll reconcile he very unique approach to storytelling and dialogue with The Avengers, Whedon said "I think it’s very easy to fall into the aesthetic of something you love. My wish is to create something that comes from within but (The Avengers" has an established tone and I am going to respect that."

What about his thoughts on JJ’s end of the blockbuster movie making business? "I had moments of sheering fucking panic because I loves Star Trek so much. It’s the gold standard for a team movie, a summer movie or any movie that has come out in the last couple of years and it makes me throw up with fear."

On the topic of LOST, its end and J.J. thoughts on it were addressed.

"What Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did was an amazing thing. When we first started and Damon and I wrote this Bible of what it would be, we were optimistic. A lot of things ended up in the series but most of them did not. Carlton Cuse came onboard and they all started making it what it became. There were ideas we thought were cool but we knew we had to be flexible. You could not anticipate Michael Emerson coming on board, which was supposed to be for a couple of episodes. They had to be entirely flexible and listen to the show. I personally believe that Damon and Carlton kicked ass and wrote an amazingly emotional episode for the finale.

Finally, the pair was asked if either of them kept any paraphernalia from their various projects. Said J.J., "I’ve got some phasers and cool gear from Trek but I don’t want to be one of those scary people on the shoe hoarders. Holy sh*t! Have you guys seen that show?"

Yes, we have J.J. but we’ll still take phasers or DHARMA jumpsuits you’ve got lying around.

Comments

I for one would love the next Trek to be in 3D. I know there are more then a few who don’t. Im a hard core Trek and well. I want what i want. Lol. I can’t wait to see what they have in store for us. Super 8 and Avengers and Capt America. This is a great time for Scifi Fans.

One more thing. Lost was an amazing show and I for one loved the ending of it. I havet to admit. I did shed a few tears as it was great but at the same time Hartbreaking. I do not know if J.J or the court can top what they did with Lost. But heres hoping that Bob Orci and Comp can do that with the next trek Movie. No Pressure guys.

#4 – How did Joss get upstaged? It was a shared panel–Abrams & Whedon–not his own panel.

#6 – I second that! The Trek09 phaser design is awful, especially the flip-around blue-and-red tip. Stupid, stupid, stupid looking. An updated TOS phaser would have been 1000x more believable.

As for 3D, I’m not a fan of it yet, but it has its uses just like any other special film technique. Some people hated the first films with sound, then with color, then with Technicolor and Panavision, then with CGI, etc…

But in Trek, using 3D would just make their sideburns stick out from their faces even more noticeably, and the lens flares would probably become dangerously vivid.

“As for 3D, I’m not a fan of it yet, but it has its uses just like any other special film technique. Some people hated the first films with sound, then with color, then with Technicolor and Panavision, then with CGI, etc…”

And some people hated 3D in the ’50s; some people hated 3D in the ’80s; some people hate 3D now. But those who do love it can keep their fingers crossed. Maybe it’ll finally catch on in the 2030s. ;)

I will only see a movie in 3D if it was actually filmed in 3D like Avatar was. otherwise, why bother. I’m even getting annoyed by regular movies because unless it was filmed with an IMAX camera the image doesn’t even fill up the screen.

It’s a little known fact that the filmmakers actually considerd a cheese setting for the new phasers. But apparently Cheez Whiz declined to have a product placement, fearing the repercussions of their product being associated with a class III particle weapon.

As you know I am not a fan of JJ Abrams but I respect his choice of using film for Star Trek XI and not going fully digital like the evil George Lucas.

I understand why he made the changes in Star Trek XI but he did change a few things that I as a Trekkie hated but I can’t deny he made a good film. I understand the choices made to make Star Trek relevant again even if I hated the choices.

He did add a bit more Star Wars to the mix so I feel the mainstream and new audience won’t get the full Trek ideals with the curent run of movies.

As I said he made a great movie, just not the best one ever that everyone in the mainstream makes it out to be.

Star Trek is one of those rare instances where 60s design is superior to 2007 design.

The original phasers and tricorders were very functional and still look great today.

The phasers in the new movie looked like toy ray guns and I didn’t like that they fired pulse ‘bullits’ only. It looks like you can’t heat a rock with the new movie one like you could with the original.

I bought a 3D TV last week and watched STII:TWOK a couple of nights ago using the set’s 2D>3D conversion capability. While not true 3D in the sense that nothing was popping out of the screen the added sense of depth – especially with scenes on the bridge of the Enterprise and Reliant – gave the film a new look that I actually found quite pleasing.

The problem with doing something like Trek in 3D is that you have to take the medium’s limitations into account. 3D works best with fairly static camera shots and slow pans (another reason why TWOK worked well, I think), so that your eyes can process the visual information. Also, dark scenes with bright foreground objects can often cause ghosting or double images so any special effect sequences would have to be carefully prepared or tested.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing the next Trek movie be in 3D. I know there are some people who will never care for 3D or who physically cannot watch a 3D movie and for them a 2D version will always be available. However, having said all that, I don’t think it will happen as long as JJ Abrams is involved simply because his kinetic style of filmmaking really doesn’t coexist well with the limits of current 3D photography.

If it did have a weakness the idea of Vulcans having emotion was a little overplayed. Spock saying that mindmeld became ineffective at emotional transference.

He was also too direct that he was emotional after seeing his planet destroyed. He should have perhaps projected that onto the younger version of himself without letting us fully know that he was also feeling it. Kept us wondering.

But great movie though.

Would love to see Nolan get some ideas time with the team as they develop the story. After seeing inception today it confirmed that the guy was not just lucky with Memento and Batman.

Yes to 3D. Starship combat in 3D could look amazing! Like Avatar, 3D films should be immersive – as long as they don’t have too many “throwing things at the audience” type moments, then Star Trek in 3D would work in 2D for non fans – best of both worlds.

I’m just more in favour of good old 2D. I am glad Mr Abrams feels the same about the medium.

30 In other words if shot in 3D rather than a 2D film converted to 3D? It is this range of fake 3D films that has caused me to hate the medium. I like the odd 3D experience, not for every single film being converted to 3D.

But I dont think 3D will add anything to the next movie. On blu ray Avatar is just as amazing on 2D as it is on 3D.

I´m not convinced by that 3D-Hype. I thinks it´s just a new way for the studios to make more money.I´m not willing to pay 13 € (about $16 ) for one ticket.

BTW: I´m not often going to cinema, because it´s to expensive to me. I live in a little town (Trier) in Germany, and here´s a cinema which is run by a big german cinema chain (Cinemaxx). If you want to buy a coke (1 Liter/ ~ 33 fl oz), you have to pay about 5 € (~ $ 6.5) and the same for a big serving of popcorn. You can buy it in a package for “only” 9 € (~ $ 11.5)

my opinion on 3-d is that it’s only good if done proper. A lot of things I see wrong with 3d films is that they keep filming those gimicky coming out of the screen shots that just end up distracting. Now I watched both Toy Story 3 and Up in 3d and avatar in 3d at theaters, and those were fine because they just made the film 3d while preserving the story-line BEHIND the screen. And the 2d versions I own at home don’t loose anything in a 2d transfer. But things like journey to the centre of the earth and spy kids 3d… used way too many gimicks of things popping out of the screen and watching them in 2d just feels wrong.

Now I’m a huge fan of 3d films, I have a 3dtv. But I want to see a 3d film done properly, not shoddy. If the next Star Trek comes out in 3d, then yes as a Trek fan I will go see it. From my own in house special effects, I can say that space shots in 3d do look very cool. But I want it done properly, and not down and dirty. Then again, if it’s shot in good old fashioned two dimensions, I’ll still come see it. There’s nothing lost in a 2d medium if you take the proper time to film and edit it properly.

Three d in my opinion should not be noticeable when watching a film. The three movies listed above (Avatar, Up, and TS3) pull this off. If Star Trek goes 3d, follow their example, and keep it behind the screen please.

3D isn’t working for my eyes. I can’t really see the 3D effect and I see a lot of double contours. So the picture is very blurred for me. I have read that up to 20% of people have also a problem with 3D. That it is just not working correctly with their eyes as it should.

So if they made the movie in 3D, I hope they will also made it in 2D. The problem is of course, that if they only show the movie in one cinema hall at the beginning, I won’t have at the start of its cinema run the choice of a 2D movie and have to wait until it is only shown in a smaller 2D hall.

And personally I find 3D movies also very expensive. It costs 3 € (3,85 $) more to watch a movie in 3D than in 2D in my local cinema. That is extortion!

To 3-D or not to 3-D, that is the question. I agree with J.J. Arams about not being totally on board. 3-D movies can be too dark. One thing we can all agree about . If they release Star Trek 2012 in 3-D, film it in the 3-D process, no conversions from 2D. I saw “The Last Airbender” in 3-D which was a conversion from 2D. Effects were made for 2D in that movie. The result? The 3-D was useless. The movie was too dark and I did not notice it.

On the other hand, 3-D animated features work if the filmmakers emphasize the effect. I did not notice the 3-D effects in “Toy Story 3.” But in “How to Train Your Dragon” and especially “Despicable Me” the 3-D effects were noticeable and good. I was told it’s easier to film an animated CGI cartoon than a live action feature in 3-D because of the lights and shadow in real life. One thing about “Despicable Me” , the filmmakers gleefully use 3-D, it’s in the credits as the last gag and they market the movie in “eye popping 3-D.” And it works. I was thoroughly entertained.

I don’t think there will ever be an immersive movie going experience until we get Star Trek holodecks. Hopefully by then, they’ll make a sequel to “Showgirls.”

@36 The real reason why it’s easier to film a cartoon or animated film in the 3d effect is because everything is virtual. The problem with live action 3d is that the two cameras have to sync up with each other for a good clear, sharp 3d image. Slightly out of sync or even if the frame is slightly offset requires post production editing to make the effect line up again.

In an animated feature, the camera’s are operated virtually. The two frames will always be in perfect sync, and it has the advantage of a re-render in case the shot is good but the 3d is not. This is why scenes in Avatar that are CGI, which is based on computer data, look better than live action, which is based on the film in the camera. Toy Stories one and two also are excellent examples to show how it is possible to make a 3d film from 2d animated cartoons. The computer data doesn’t change, all you’re doing is adding an extra camera into the scene and rendering it out.

The only 3d form 2d upgrades in movies I’ll ever accept are along the lines of what they did with toy story. take an animated film, and then add a second camera and make it 3d. Other than that… I prefer the film to be native to 3d.

Adding my voice to the Hord, I shall say…skip the 3-D. I say, the minute that Star Trek needs, or thinks it needs 3-D to be better, or sell tickets, is the day that we loose Trek all together. Trek is about a good adventure, a good well written script, and good enough FX that you believe the adventure and the script. Kahn was awesome, The Voyage Home was awesome, the undiscovered country was awesome. Why? good adventure, good script, and good enough FX to make it all believable. That’s my ticket for the most basic elements of a good star trek movie.

That’s why #3 and #5 fail in my book. The adventure was good for both, the script worked, but failed a little, however the FX (in their totality), did not allow me to believe in the story.

If the next Trek movie is in 3D, I won’t bother seeing it! I can’t watch 3D with glasses owing to slight double vision – I was monoscopic until I was six and my grandfather and Mum always have been!

Also, live action 3D film looks flat in 2D versions as everything is sharply in focus. Check out the promos for Resident Evil 4! If the film is shot in 3D, it will have no lasting worth.

Comparisons between 3D and the introduction of sound and colour in cinema aren’t relevant. Colour has been available in cinema from the outset, even if the frames were hand-coloured and there has been proper colour still photography available for about a century.

Stereoscopic 3D has also been around for over a century and all forms of 3D that have been tried have been abandoned sooner or later.

No one abandoned sound or colour every 25 years. 3D might work ok in cartoons (and, let’s be honest, Avatar was a cartoon) but in live action it’s hugely limiting. ST09’s handheld camerawork would be out of the question and the space battles would be limited in dynamism as camera movement would be difficult.

What would be better would be if the film was shot at 48 or 72 frames per second. The film wouldn’t need to be in 3D then, as the picture quality would be so good, it would seem to be in 3D even without glasses!

With the move to HD video for heavily FX-based films it’s a more sensible option. Film only runs at 24fps because it was the minimum speed they could get away with for analogue sound in cinema. In the digital era, such considerations are no longer an issue!

If the next Star Trek film is to have any lasting worth, it shield be kept 2D. We should all pray that this farcical 3D flirtation ends soon for the sake of decent cinema.

It does not really matter to me whether it is 3-d or not. If it is good, it will draw me in no matter what. The only thing I would be wary of with 3-d is when they start throwing things at the screen in an obvious attempt the throw things at the audience. I remember how obvious Friday the 13th, Part 3 and Jaws III were with that. When you see it in 2-d it just looks ridiculous. Just try to keep it real. (I imagine, with JJ’s comments about not being sold, that there is not much chance of it being in 3-d unless his opinion changes between now and then or Paramount forces his hand).

Regarding phaser effects, I agree. Really, a lot of the special effects were taken right out of George Lucas’ Star Wars handbook. From the bullets coming out of phasers to the warp speed effect definetly did not look like Star Trek. (The only thing I actually liked more was when the ships went to warp. I liked the way they shot out like a bat out of hell. The only alteration I would make would be to add a flash, like most of the other Star Trek series had when going to warp to distinguish it from Star Wars). I know some take issue with the Rick Berman years for various reasons, but I have to say the special effects were always top notch. I doubt many fans would take issue to Abrams adopting some of the special effects used in the past shows and movies.

I’m not anti-3d, but I’m not a huge fan, either. While watching the few 3d films I have seen, I found myself at times looking around the screen at various bits, rather than taking in the whole picture. The 3d effect, itself, was a distraction. It can be interesting at times, but mostly in a “that was cool” sorta way. 3d has not made me like a movie any more than I would have liked (or disliked) it anyway. Anyway, I vote NO for Star Trek in 3d.

Keep in mind that while J.J Abrams has said that he isn’t a fan of 3-D, it is ultimately Paramount’s decision. And if Paramount thinks Star Trek 12 will make more money because of 3-D, then it will be in 3-D. It is a financial decision, even if it isn’t true 3-D and that it costs moviegoers more. I would say that it is safe to assume the sequel will be in 3-D unless we’re told otherwise. Studios think they can duplicate “Avatar”s financial success; that is why 3-D is here to stay. Cynical yes; we live in an age of crass consumerism born out of cynical ideas.

I liked the “new” Enterprise Pulse phaser’s, very similar to TWOK ones. In fact wasnt the Wrath of Khan the last TOS movie that featured the Enterprise firing Phaser’s? Im pretty sure the other films only used photon torpedoes in battle scenes. And yes to 3-D, it may not work in all mediums, but for Trek, I believe it would.

New processes in film have added to the involvement of the audience and the appeal of cinema as an immersive experience. 3-strip Technicolor had a strong vivid palette of colour and rich blacks which would still stand up today against any digital projection, for me, is still better. Surround sound has involved us more in the atmosphere of the story, when done well (and when sat in the sweet spot of the theatre) it helps us escape into the world of the story. Not sure if the rear centre channel thing has really added much, but hey.

3D? I find it a distraction, it lessens the quality of the image, is more prone to technical cock ups, costs more for a ticket, and I can’t see an average rom com benefiting from being in the format.
That said, it does help prevent some piracy (well, would do more so if films were only released in 3D), and at least for the time being gets a bit more cash back into the film industry.

If Star Trek: 2 Boldly Go (I’m still plugging that title) is in 3D it certainly wouldn’t stop me seeing it, I just don’t think it adds anything.

In my oppinion we’re goingoverboard with the whole 3D thing, I watched Star Trek at IMAX and that was every bit as good as watching a movie in 3D, I agree with JJ about the glasses as well, let’s separate Star Trek 2012 from the pack and present a great movie with a great story and great special effects without the gimmick of 3D!

54. I WANT BIG BATTLES WITH MANY KLINGONS AND FEDERATION SHIPS WITH KLINGON THEME MUSIC! - July 28, 2010